About your Search

20130706
20130714
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
. here's a chart that shows america's trade deficit. and energy, imported energy comprises the largest account. we haven't had a balanced trade deficit since the 1970's when the job hemorrhage started in this country. and it gets worse every year. america's future depends on innovation. we can't continue to live like this. every community you go to in this country, they say, well, we have to move somewhere because my child can't find a job or, gosh, i had to get another job and i had my salary cut in half. it's pretty obvious what's been happening. the major category of trade deficits is energy imports. energy. because we are not self-sufficient in energy production in this country. part of the answer lies in new energy systems. systems that even nasa has helped us to begin to invent. yes, in the solar fields. yes, in new hydrogen technologies like cryogenic hydrogen. yes, in natural gas. thank goodness the department invested in fossil fuel technologies. that's where the fracking technologies came from. it came from thinking about the future, not living in the past. so the gentleman's
meltdown. and federal dollars are very scares. as we face this huge deficit together, we have to look at every option available to meet the challenges of doing more with less. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. i rise to oppose the amendment of the the gentleman from georgia. his amendment would cut $15 million. i should say for the record, we cut $220 million from last year's number and so we have substantially reduced this account. let me just say, too, the basic science program within the department conducts research with a staggering potential for benefits for our nation. cutting the program further, which is what he seeks, threatens our long-term energy security, first american scientists and industry and blemishes our credibility as a world-wide leader in basic science programs. i oppose his amendment and urge others to do likewise. i yield back. ms. kaptur: i move to strike the las
to the deficit? no. instead we are recklessly pushing forward this partisan bill designed to inflict grave harm. and even more pernicious is the substance of this bill which throws millions of american families aside. this removes the entire nutrition title from the farm bill with no indication that the majority intends to take up those programs in the near future. let's be clear about what this means. food stamps are the critical central area of our social safety net. helping over 47 million americans, nearly half of them are children. 99% of recipients live below the poverty line. 75% of households leaving this aid include a child, a senior citizen or an individual with a disability. these are the individuals and republican hat this majority has just called extraneous. they are not extraneous. the bill before us would mean he death now of the food stamp program, the other nutrition programs that have been part of the farm bill for decades. this bill is immoral and it is a serious risk to our society. 532 farm groups sent the speaker a letter opposing the splitting off of nutrition program. bi
in the future and paying off our deficit. we simply cannot afford to spend taxpayer dollars on research, the private sector can do better and taxpayers should not be asked to provide additional support to an industry that consistently has record-breaking profits. our energy sector has some of the of the most promising ideas and technologies in the world. our energy policy, however, is horribly outdated. h.r. 2609 slashes research and development for renewable energy by some 60% and adds additional money that the administration either want -- neither wants nor needs to research fossil fuels and clean coal. at the same time it continues to spend far too much on fossil fuel r&d. in fact, we dole out more fossil fuel subsidies than any other country. more than $500 billion in 2011. and they often go to expensive projects with little upside. the fact is we don't need to spend taxpayer money this way. fossil fuel companies are highly profitable, posting some of the highest profits in the world, and they can shoulder than other r&d costs. -- their own r&d costs. this is a clear example of dupl
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4